ReviewThe British journal of radiology2013
CT colonography for investigation of patients with symptoms potentially suggestive of colorectal cancer: a review of the UK SIGGAR trials.
Review in The British journal of radiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- The role of routine imaging in identifying endoluminal colorectal pathology, a United Kingdom clinical experience.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Cost Differences After Initial CT Colonography Versus Optical Colonoscopy in the Elderly.Academic radiology · 2015Article
- Paradigm shift: the Copernican revolution in diverticular disease.Annals of gastroenterologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
This paper argues for the use of CT colonography (CTC) to investigate patients with symptoms potentially suggestive of colorectal cancer. It describes the rationale for the UK Special Interest Group in Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (SIGGAR) randomised controlled trials that compared CTC with barium enema (BE) or colonoscopy for diagnosis of colorectal cancer or large polyps in symptomatic patients. Diagnostic outcomes from the trials are detailed for both intra- and extracolonic disease, along with psychological reactions of patients to the tests, and cost-effectiveness of the different diagnostic strategies. The author concludes that BE should be replaced by CTC immediately and that CTC is a sensitive, acceptable and equally cost-effective alternative to colonoscopy in patients in whom colonoscopy is contraindicated or undesirable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.